it was a kind of sponsored tour, just not by the state department. still, his role as jazz ambassador was already well cemented in 1960. why the congo? on a commercially sponsored tour. certainly, the state department wanted him there. there's no doubt about that. why the congo was important?

the congo was rich in minerals. particularly uranium, which becomes important to national security interests after 1945. right away, congo becomes this center of attention for the u.s. and the soviet union. more than just that, it was in 1959, stepping back a year, when belgium said to the congolese we are giving you your independence next year as part of that decolonization movement. as would happen in other parts of africa when the colonial powers leave, there is either a power vacuum, or at least the availability for other influences or organic leaders to rise up and lead. that is exactly what happened. in congo, various congolese people begin organizing

political parties. the guy who came to the forefront, you may know him, the anniversary of his assassination wasn't long ago. the 50th anniversary was just a couple years ago, which kind of tells you where this story is headed. as soon as he gain the presidency, he is met with a civil war. there is a section of the belgian congo that they didn't want to be a part of. they wanted to be independent. separate from the new state of the congo. they are confronted immediately. with having to deal with this because they were especially mineral rich. and, they look to the united states and the u.n. and say i need your help to bring these guys back in the fold, to crush this rebellion.

the united states for their part was like i don't know if i want -- we don't know if we want you to have complete control over that. there is still this notion we have this trapping remaining. those are those kinds of ideas that are circulating. the united states would have rather exerted hegemony over that region instead of just helping with the drive to unite the congo. the movement needed help. so he said, and this is his most fatal flaw, let's see if the soviets will help me. immediately the the united states says threats. that is a threat. if this new government is going to align with united states -- the soviet union that is a problem that needs to be rectified. to rectify that problem, the cia

sends people and funds operatives to capture and assassinate president patrice in 1961. satchmo didn't know about this. he was not privy to this information. satchmo was still playing concerts on the continent in january 1961 when those cia-funded operatives assassinated the president. i don't need to go into too much more depth for you to see that conflict into which these african-american ambassadors were stepping as the face of the united states and africa. kind of putting the best foot forward even while the united states foreign-policy was doing something perhaps a little bit less than savory, that would

give the sense of a different idea of what america was for that time. there's your daily camille. got to give her top billing. while you absorb the cuteness, let's talk about the cold war. you cannot think about these jazz ambassadors without thinking about that firmly within the cold war. they had specific intent sending these guys into the same area where they were dropping bombs shortly before or shortly after. they are sending these musicians into cold war hotbeds throughout the third world in order to garner that support. the civil rights movement is in full swing. there is no surprise african-american musicians in africa trying to put the best face on the united states. on top of all that, there is also the context of vietnam

which is going badly for the united states by the end of the 1960's. the mood has soured about this whole thing and about u.s. foreign policy generally, so that context puts these jazz ambassadors in the awkward decision to feel like they are defending foreign-policy. or at least addressing these issues of how are you out here telling us how great united states is when the united states is doing these awful things in vietnam and other places in the world. that is the paradox of this whole thing. kind of the context of these jazz ambassadors. it is also important to think why africa? why not the middle east? i think we can look back again and retrace a couple of steps. about why africa was so important to this cold war. and why jazz? this was a time when rock and roll has come online and become popular. why jazz?

my not an american composer traveling with a symphony? there is some issues that are important to the story that we will unpack. think about how it began and why, and then looking through the lens of a couple of these musicians, you can start to understand not only how the state department saw their role but how they perceived their role in this mission of spreading the american image throughout the world and garnering goodwill for u.s. policy. it adds a really strong layer of complexity to this two decades of jazz ambassadors in the world. finally we can think about some impact of this whole thing. the state department spent lots of money. congress was ticked many times over these 20 years at having to fund these far-flung and complex -- logistically complex tours.

what it all amounts to in the end of things -- we will analyze that a little bit -- and to think about the end of the story, we can look at how these jazz musicians were reminiscing and remembering their role. the context, the cold war. you can't extricate these jazz tours from what was going on more broadly. here you have benny goodman. he was one of those big jazz band leaders. very popular. here he is. the american in red square in 1962. it should start sending off bells in your mind and alarms saying why is that happening? why in the world is an american in the heart of the soviet union at what is often perceived to be the peak of tensions of the cold

war? what is going on on either side? >> the cuban missile crisis. >> you bet. the cold war almost becomes hot. the cuban missile crisis is one of those things. what else? go ahead. >> it is more like a culture war. try to spread culture to try to overcome the soviets. >> ok. this is happening because they agreed to this cultural exchange. you have the soviet symphonies traveling in the united states to show us what each other is about. that is what that was intended to do. go ahead. >> tying into the cuban missile crisis, you have an arms race and nuclear proliferation. >> not just the arms race but a space race going on. in 1957, the soviets beat the americans to space.

they sent sputnik up and sent americans ruling -- americans reeling like, how could they possibly do that? not just the space race but the moon race was on. they are positioning things that led to the cuban missile crisis. absolutely. one other thing that may not be as close but is close at hand as some of these other high-profile items, you know how that ended up. you know about the berlin wall. tensions had mounted. you had u.s. tanks pointed at soviet tanks across the street. the soviets said we are going to build a wall to keep you guys separate. tensions had gotten high. that is in 1961. then in 1963, as you mentioned, the cuban missile crisis. literally in the middle of those big events of the cold war, you have benny goodman trying to play his jazz for russians who frankly loved the music.

jazz was something not only americans loved, but people around the world loved. if you have seen the movie "swing kids," it is the appeal of this underground jazz. too young? not christian bale fans? i get it. that's fine. jazz was popular all over the world. there is that cultural attraction. jazz in the soviet union was a little bit suppressed because of the perspective of what good music was and good art was, and we will get to that in a moment. but that is what is going on in terms of the cold war. also, there is this civil rights context. it's no surprise that in 1955, the montgomery bus boycott that tipped off the civil rights movement is followed almost immediately by louis armstrong in ghana trying to say look how cool america is. look how purely american this

artform is. you should come along with us. there is no surprise you have an african-american musician on the heels of what is blown out. you have to think of vietnam. by the end of the 1960's, vietnam has become something of a mess for the united states. at the same time, you got guys like randy weston, this six foot eight, towering jazz pianist, fielding questions like how can you be supporting the united states when this is going on? that is the context of all of these jazz musicians. you can't separate them from why the state department was putting them out there. to backtrack. thinking why africa? you know why in terms of minerals and the natural resources, especially after the

decolonization movement. the u.s. and soviet union descending on almost all those countries saying, yes, align with us. we will send you cool stuff. and you can be our friend. that is a simple way of thinking about it. we know why africa conceptually. we also remember that africa and the third world were some of the most hotly contested cold war spaces. so what you have here on this top map are all of the conflicts throughout the world from 1945 onward. this includes a lot of civil wars in africa in the 1990's and 2000s. you have a lot of conflicts emerging even in the cold war. this bottom one may be more telling about what the u.s. was doing. in africa. this is all cia involvement as a

percentage of years. these countries shaded in black are places where the cia was operating from 95%-100% of those years. a big presence for the cia trying to work against the soviet influence. of course there are these other countries where the cia was operating. no only did they want to win the war of influence in africa, the u.s. was worried about losing principally because of this big civil rights problem they had at home. they worried in africa in particular it will cause the u.s. to lose that cultural traction and lose the goodwill for america entirely. the soviet union sent jazz musicians. why not rock 'n roll, why not composers?

i think we can get into the idea of this thinking about the difference between what the soviets saw as high culture and what americans thought about the new way of thinking about art. the soviets mastered the art of classical music. they had the market cornered on that. we know this song of course. ♪ this is, of course the -- yeah, it's the "nutcracker suite." right. very much not jazz. probably do not need to hear it again, but i am proving a point

here. stick with me. the soviet union, for as stingy as the united states has always been with funding the arts the soviet union was loose with funding the arts. they funneled a lot of money into supporting symphonies and orchestras and supporting the arts generally. the soviet union, these other composers, they had all been original to russia. the united states has the russians the beat on cool. no doubt about that. if the soviets had the u.s. beat on classical, the u.s. had the soviets beat on cool. here is what cool sounded like in 1960. ♪ you only wish you could play the trumpet that good.

so we have dizzy gillespie and his quartet, i guess making a quintet. the epitome of american cool. difference in style between classical and jazz, but the state department saw something special in jazz, something they could use. cultural traction. what is uniquely american? what is so american about jazz music that the state department would say go out there instead rock bands or american composers and other things? what makes jazz american? >> african-american culture. >> it had its roots in african cultures all throughout the world. that is something that the musicians acknowledged, but the state department was slow to acknowledge that. the byline was this is american music. the musicians knew a little

different. but jazz in the world because it is american. >> rock 'n roll was too english. >> perhaps. it was not organically american. there is something to that. >> it didn't have to follow typical rules classical had to follow. it echoes freedom and liberty. >> now we are really onto something. if you think about this compared and how this music is played, compared to this music, it is not a difference between structure and no structure. any jazz musician would deny that is a characteristic. and how this music is played, but they are following a score.

some composer has written a score and they are not going to deviate. these guys, it's a lot of freedom in terms of how it is played. what is the basic structure, and how can we work around that basic structure? jazz was american in the sense that it represented the freedom america was supposed to represent. the state department saw that, and that is what they wanted. that is why jazz. that is why they wanted to send these guys out there and say this free style of music is similar to the freedom, the freeness of the united states. you should prefer our model to this. no surprise that a lot of these musicians were african-americans. for them in particular what does an african-american musician see about jazz playing in africa no less? how does that represent freedom for an african-american?

how does that represent freedom for an african-american? playing inz musician africa or pakistan or anywhere else? go ahead, josh. >> it is kind of freeing just because of what is going on in america. they are traveling the world playing fun music while their counterparts are oppressed at home. >> that is a great point. if you think about 1956, the dizzy gillespie band is first out there with this integrated black and white playing together band, they are experiencing freedom that many counterparts at home never get to experience. that was not lost on them, the novelty of what they were doing. just as much as they were saying this experience is freedom in its essence. to tie your thoughts together, not only did jazz represent the freedom of americanness, but the actual musicians, they felt the

freedom to deviate from -- to agree on the basic structure and have total freedom around that basic structure on how to express themselves through their music. ok. so we understand why jazz, but there's a difference. there is a distinction between early jazz and modern jazz and what each represented. both for the state department and the people who were hearing these forms throughout the world. here is an example of early jazz. ♪

i guess i should qualify that by saying before world war ii. ♪ you probably recognize that song -- head nods? you may have heard that in a movie or something. that is duke ellington's orchestra directing the band. playing take the a train. that is characteristic of early forms of jazz. we envision that being played in a jazz club. in the 1920's, the 1930's. indeed, these big orchestras, the director playing with a big band, that was very characteristic of early forms of jazz. as the 1950's war on jazz changed a little bit. guys like dave brubeck, who had been orchestra leaders before the 1950's moved over to this quintet model and the different sound that was associated with it. here is an example. ♪

you probably recognize that. that is dave brubeck's famous take five. hopefully you can see the difference between big band, big orchestra and the way these smaller groups favored the improvisation that was characteristic and made modern jazz so appealing to so many people. so, just thinking about some basic music structure.

you have a 4-4 time signature. dave brubeck is working in 5/4, and he has all sorts of crazy time signatures that i sure as hell could never play. it is this where i want to focus on for a moment. the state department was seeing something. seeing the relevance and the applicability of this new form of jazz in the places they were going. particularly eastern europe just as much as africa. what then is the ability, if you are a ukrainian, or you are an iraqi or ghanaian and you are hearing that kind of music. what is the message that might be conveyed with that new kind of jazz music? >> they are in different countries. they don't need words. it just sounds upbeat and can

mean kind of the same thing. >> it certainly sounds different than the local music or traditional iraqi or pakistani music. has a different sound to it. usually it has a lot of pep to it or movement if nothing else. that is true. >> it communicates this new freeform that you have truly transcends words, something people are drawn to. >> the kind of freedom that represents. if there are still solos and forms of expression, if this is a contrast, the classical music to the jazz generally, this is specially had a lot of relevance. indeed, in those places where dave brubeck and thelonious monk

and those other guys were traveling, they felt a revolutionary nature of basic structure of music. let's agree on a key, a tempo. and kind of a basic melody and we will return to that. but outside of that, we are all doing some awesome stuff. the improvisation of it all is a really, really, really big key factor to the freedom that jazz was supposed to represent. that wasn't lost in the state department. it wasn't lost on the people hearing it throughout the world. particularly africa. we have been talking about a lot of these jazz artists. the question is why does this start to begin with? in 1954, president eisenhower realized he had a race problem on his hands. it was no secret that jim crow america tarnished the image of america in the world.

a lot of of people throughout the world were looking on and saying you have some problems domestically. you can't seem to solve them. or at least you are not willing to give these up. the eisenhower administration was saying we need to do something about this. it is no coincidence that the same month the bus boycott began in 1955, dizzy gillespie's tour got approved. the same month as the bus boycott began. the civil rights tipped off at the same time the state department was saying we need those guys to go to africa to put on a good face because our image has been tarnished at home. that brought on these two decades of jazz tours.

right away, dizzy gillespie -- those are his band members. not dizzy himself. you can see the integrated nature of the band. white and black, playing together, traveling together, living together. that is the kind of image the state department wanted to put together about america. they wanted to say this is what we are. not that stuff you hear about back home. this is us. this is the image they wanted to portray. a positive image of everyone getting along together. very early on we can see a different motivation by dizzy gillespie and these other musicians they knew they were being sent to garner goodwill. right away you can tell what they wanted first and foremost was a chance to play. that's what they wanted to do. they knew very clearly this was something that would have been literally impossible as a commercial tour. even with state department sponsorship it was almost impossible to get a decent piano in these places, let alone one that was in tune.

they knew that this was something they would never get to do besides. first of all a chance to play. second, they saw this as validation, not only their art form but also of them as americans. african-americans for whom jazz had been sidelined as lowbrow culture. suddenly, the state department says we want you to be our ambassadors in the world. they say, yes, finally, someone gets it. someone appreciates jazz for being great music and a great art form and they appreciate me, an african-american, for being capable of ea that face for the united states in the world. on top of that, as they spend some time in africa they start connecting the dots between the

jazz they had grown up knowing in the united states and the roots of jazz in african music, and african cultures. as soon as these tours start, you see these diverging motivations. looking through the lens of a couple of these musicians we can get a better sense of the complexity that they brought to the table. the state department would have been perfectly happy of these guys going out there saying jazz is awesome, listen to our music. america is great. but they, the musicians, weren't willing to rest on that alone. the state department never really foresaw those connections with their roots these positions -- musicians would make. quick story on the top. here is louis armstrong, his first trip to ghana in 1956. first trip to africa.

he traveled on a commercial tour in europe a decade before. but in 1956, louis armstrong goes to africa for the first time. he is playing with his band, he is playing for them. in the crowd he sees a woman who looks just like his mom. his mom died 20 years before. in the middle of the song he stopped playing and he goes over to her. he goes over to this woman who looks just like his mom. he says to the crowd i came here, i came from here way back, at least my people did. now i know this is my country too. from the very first interaction, louis armstrong and one of these african-american musicians. this is characteristic of several of the others, too. making that connection between their roots not only as musicians but also as people, i

came from here. i know this is my country, too. feeling that identity, feeling that connection. louis armstrong, after his tour of europe, he had already been acknowledged as ambassador satchmo. louis armstrong was the perfect cultural ambassador because here he was, a guy who could transcend borders, transcend cultural boundaries. he could play in all circles. not just crossing boundaries like a national boundary from africa. but crossing cultural boundaries. here is a man, one of the most prominent cultural figures in the united states who had grown

accustomed in jim crow america to behaving a certain way. in white circles and being himself or more himself back at home with his family. he had already grown accustomed to crossing those different boundaries. that is just one example. there is another example of him crossing actual borders. in 1955, before he went to ghana, he was in east berlin with his band. they had gotten approval for him to be there. from the soviets. he had soviet papers to be in east germany and in east berlin. late one night, east berlin has shut down for the night. it was not a place that was hopping at night. he says, i hear west berlin is hopping, let's go over there. his guy says we can't do that. so he is just insistent. let's try it. they walk up to the soviet guard. they start getting guns out, asking what these guys are doing. as soon as one of the guards saw louis armstrong, a russian guard, who probably did not speak any english, new to louis armstrong was. he called his other guard buddies over. they are taking pictures,

getting autographs. they send them across the bridge to the american side at checkpoint charlie. they get to the american side, and the american guard -- it was like this big guy from texas, this imposing figure. as soon as that guy saw louis armstrong he said it is satchmo. the same thing that happened on the russian side happened on the american side. where louis armstrong because of his cultural relevance, his standing as a cultural icon, he was able to transcend not only the boundary between east and west berlin, but also that legal boundary in many ways. when the american ambassador heard about it, he said how did you do that? i cannot even do that. he said i can't even just walk back and forth, but louis armstrong because of his relevance, that is the kind of ability that his cultural power held. he was slated to go on a state department tour.

the culmination, that stamp of approval by the state department. but in 1957, when the central high school of little rock has that order to desegregate, and the governor says no and the president is slow to take action, dragging his feet on the whole issue, louis armstrong says i'm not going on your tour. in 1957 he can say stuff like a colored man has no country. those are the kinds of things he can say as louis armstrong in 1957 that even 10 years before, maybe even he could not say. certainly the average african-american could not say that. that is the kind of clout that he had not only in the world but also in american culture to say

things like the government can go to hell. that's another thing he said. talking about this treatment of african americans at home. here he is saying i'm not going out there and telling everyone america is awesome when you are doing this african-americans at home. that's what louis armstrong could do, and that is that deep meaning that they had for him despite the images that the public perception had of him. they crafted him as the simpleton not thinking about his role in things or his music. but you can see already he had a rather deep and complex understanding of what he was doing. this is what he wanted to do -- he wanted to play for the people. he did not want to be playing for those ambassadors and those kinds of things. he wanted to play with the people. dizzy gillespie, who you heard earlier. it turns out he was more democratic than the state

department. the state department is saying, this is the image of american democracy. this is why you guys should like america instead of the soviet way of life. but as he is playing concerts through that tour of south asia, they are looking at the crowd saying all we are playing for are american diplomats and their families. he even said something to the effect of why are we playing for the choir. he insisted and demanded that they open the gates to the people outside, he said let the ragamuffin children come in. he said they need to hear this music, too. that kind of insistence and assertion as the leading figure on the tour that the state department said when he got back maybe we will go with goodman next time. someone who will say kinder things about the u.s. he did not go on another state-sponsored tour for another 14 years.

when he did in 1973, in the interim, he did not actually run for president, this is a bit of a joke but it speaks to his cultural traction he gained as a jazz musician, he was fighting for civil rights, fighting free protection under the law, in that time he had become a convert and a devout believer in the high faith and changed his way of thinking about america to the extent that in 1973 when he was in kenya playing for a kenyan audience he said this. to the kenyans, in the concert, he said this is the culmination not only of my professional activities but of my human relationships. to come to kenya to perform for you because i think of you as my people.

in other words, this is the best thing i have ever done as a jazz musician, to perform for you because you are my people. having toward just once, after experiencing that african culture one time, he realized that was his roots and culture and heritage. and that is the meaning that the state department could not have envisioned when they were sending these guys out there. next up, this thing about duke ellington. in contrast to satchmo and dizzy, he was a different kind of ambassador. he was the elder statesman of this bunch. he was born in 1899, so he is basically an old man when he is doing these tours. he has these middle-class airs about him. he had been raised in a little bit better scenario in the united states than some of his black counterparts. the state department considered him a model ambassador.

he was one of the only registered republicans among these musicians. he was a very different stamp of these musicians, but even he saw the connection of his jazz as an american art form with african roots. he as that old guard saw the united states and their mission in the world to spread american idealism. he saw it as noble. he was happy to partake in it. despite the contradictions in him going to africa to kind of promulgate these ideas. he was so proud in 1971 he got even busier. when the united states wrote off africa in terms of these cultural tours they sent him to central america, and down to brazil.

he was touring basically as an old man well into the 1970's, out there doing what he perceived to be the important mission of the united states and the world. we can think about effectiveness now. you can see through their eyes what these musicians saw as distinct from what the state department saw. for 20 years they were out there traveling the world. the state department was spending lots and lots of money, much to the consternation of congress. we can think, was it effective? did they do anything after all? what do you think? what is the effectiveness of this? go ahead. >> i'm pretty sure even now, in, like, the drc, there are millions of internally displaced people. democracy never took hold there. there are still countries where i feel like we failed to bring our ideas too.

>> great point. if you think about africa today, and you think about that map that i showed earlier, many of those areas where we had conflict, many of which are not cold war conflicts, that gains special traction. what we are looking at here, a map of 1970. this blue and green are kind of good in the sense that those are american involvement or at least american alignments. red and pink are bad in terms of soviet alignment or involvement. that is 1970. in 1980 you see a few things have changed. not a lot. most of northern africa is still flooded pink. a little bit different particularly in angola. 1970 was u.s. involvement but 1980, the united states lost those countries and the

influence to the soviets. the united states lost ethiopia to the soviets even though they gained somalia. they had regained egypt back. if you're thinking about the impact and effect of this whole thing, at best, think about who won the cold war in africa, at best it was a draw. at worst, you think about who wins the battle, who keeps the territory when it is all over. the united states turned its focus away from africa after 1975, at least diplomatic, to other parts of the world, specifically central america. maybe winning isn't really the reasonable measurement for their effectiveness in being jazz ambassadors to africa and other parts of the world. i think the question becomes why. as these tours went on, they became more and more privy to what their role was, what they

were trying to do, what the state department wanted them to do. despite all of those contradictions they were still out there playing. the question is why. i throw it to you. go ahead. >> i definitely think, it was, like, their only opportunity to play outside of the country. they would not have have the chance staying inside of america facing racism and segregation. >> yeah. a big part of this story, the state department took this image of jazz, this backwater artform and turned that on its head and said this is appropriate competition for those highest forms of art, soviet classical music. this is proper competition for that. they wanted to get into that. they said finally, some acknowledgment of our music as a proper artform.

why did they keep doing this despite the contradiction? >> you talked about how it is about connecting with roots. i think they felt that if they could do this, to be able to continue to interact with that and have that experience i think would have been something that they would have taken this stand or position and still have continued to play the role, essentially, because they get that connection. >> ok, and that is a great point. to keep connecting with their roots. they felt that connection, and they wanted to keep indulging it even more. absolutely. that is a good point to segue us thinking about the end of the story. you have duke ellington born 1899. let's run in the circles that we are given and trust that those in power have our best interest in mind. if you've seen the butler, that

good example. forest whitaker's character who has seen his son become a black panther says you guys are crazy. work with the system and the system will work for you. his son thinks he is crazy. duke ellington is very much like this character, let's work with the system. the system will work for us if we are patient. for his part in 1969, for all of nixonckpedaling the administration did on civil rights issues, nixon himself was a musician. he was a fan of jazz. he realized duke ellington had been the foremost ambassador of all of these guys. he deserved this highest award that a civilian of the united states can win, this presidential medal of freedom.

for duke ellington receiving this award that was validation as a musician and as african-american man working for equal rights and civil rights. that is how he perceived this. willing to work with an official established channels, not necessarily to open the system, but to work within the channels he was given. that is one way thinking about the old guard of these jazz musicians. randy weston kind of was on the opposite end of that thing. he is 26 years younger than duke ellington. kind of a whole generation removed. in the same year duke ellington received the presidential medal of freedom, randy weston opens a club in morocco, his own jazz club. after two northern africa he

stayed in morocco in 1967 and lived in morocco for several years after this before returning to the united states. you can see both by his garb, but also listening to his music, randy weston when he continued to make music incorporated the african elements of rhythm and congas and those kinds of unique rhythms into the jazz. you get that fusion within randy weston's music. not only an identity, but straight up moving there. that's a different perspective than what duke ellington and the old guard guys had on the whole thing. the final note, the state department realized too late that what they had started out with in the 1950's with this can-do attitude on foreign policy, the u.s. can shape the world how we wanted it. that has changed. by the mid-1970's. foreign policy has started to become more like american politics at home. a little bit tired, a little bit depressed. a little bit mixed up, i guess.

what the state department realized only too late as they were cashiering this program of the jazz ambassadors, they realized americans are better employed in the world as an idea than as an identity and nationality. sending these guys out there and saying this is an american, this is what america represents, saying this is an american and you can see how this guy has been made great because america. instead of that, they realized only too late they should have said america is a great idea and these guys are a representation of that idea. so that is all i've got. i will see you on thursday. right? there is another reading. do that and have a good one. see you.

the smithsonian national museum of african american history and culture opens its stores to the public for the first time on saturday, september 24. american history tv will be live on the american mall leading up to the dedication ceremony. president obama, first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and mrs. laura bush, justice john roberts, -- allsman john lewis live saturday, september 24 at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. an american-born son of

japanese immigrants who the forced incarceration of japanese-americans and the supreme court ruled his detainment constitutional. it was eventually overturned after lawyers reopened the case. next, a law professor talks "enduringbook, conviction." she discusses her role in overturning the case "enduring in 1983. the commonwealth club of san francisco hosted the event and it is just over one hour. welcome. welcome our live audience here in semper cisco and our radio and online audiences. it is my pleasure to have organized the professor to come and talk about